The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Delivering genomic medicine in the United Kingdom National Health Service: a systematic review and narrative synthesis
Open accessAbstract
Purpose We sought to assess the readiness of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service to implement a Genomic Medicine Service. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify what is known about factors related to the implementation of genomic medicine in routine health care and to draw out the implications for the UK and other settings. Methods Relevant studies were identified in Web of Science and PubMed from their date of inception to April 2018. The review included primary research studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, and systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results Fifty-five studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of studies reviewed were conducted in the United States. We identified four domains: (1) systems, (2) training and workforce needs, (3) professional attitudes and values, and (4) the role of patients and the public. Conclusion Mainstreaming genomic medicine into routine clinical practice requires actions at each level of the health-care system. Our synthesis emphasized the organizational, social, and cultural implications of reforming practice, highlighting that demonstration of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, attending to the compatibility of genomic medicine with clinical principles, and involving and engaging patients are key to successful implementation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Apart from these positive assessments, studies also demonstrate that some professionals are uncertain about the value of genetic testing [51, 90] and doubt that all patients will benefit significantly from PM [30, 31, 42, 49, 54, 57].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [90]
In the citing paper
“This harm can occur, for example, if patients or professionals misinterpret the results [90] and for this reason make the wrong therapeutic decision [32, 92].”
From Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis (2021) · cites this paper as [90]
Citations
Cites
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., et al. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-35 · Cited by 2,289
Ormondroyd, E., Mackley, M. P., Blair, E., Craft, J., Knight, J. C., Taylor, J. C., Taylor, J., & Watkins, H. (2018) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2017.157 · Cited by 70
Patient safety in genomic medicine: an exploratory study
Korngiebel, D. M., Fullerton, S. M., & Burke, W. (2016) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2016.16 · Cited by 17
Arar, N., Seo, J., Abboud, H. E., Parchman, M., & Noel, P. (2010) · Personalized Medicine · doi:10.2217/pme.10.47 · Cited by 11
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Carroll, 2016, Primary care providers’ experiences with and perceptions of personalized genomic medicine, Can Fam Phys, 62, E626
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erdmann, A., Rehmann-Sutter, C., & Bozzaro, C. (2021) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearce, C., Goettke, E., Hallowell, N., McCormack, P., Flinter, F., & McKevitt, C.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Guy's Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McKevitt, Christopher
- Venue
- Genetics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2667-2675
- ISSN
- 1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2951272058
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2019-12-01)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (CLAHRC-2013-10022)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (CLAHRC-2013-10022, NIHR CLAHRC‐2013‐10022)
- King's College London
- NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London (NIHR CLAHRC-2013-10022)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Keywords
- genomic medicine, National Health Service, health care system, employee training, professional attitudes, patient and public engagement, clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, routine clinical practice, health care reform
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, United Kingdom, Humans, State Medicine, Genomics, Precision Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review